I think I'm a part of the first generation of journalists to skip print media entirely, and I've learned a lot these last few years at Forbes. My work has appeared on TVOvermind, IGN, and most importantly, a segment on The Colbert Report at one point. Feel free to follow me on Twitter or on Facebook, write me on Facebook or just email at paultassi(at)gmail(dot)com. I'm also almost finished with my sci-fi novel series, The Earthborn Trilogy.

Gaming Journalism's Problem Isn't Being 'Beholden' to Companies

Criticism is a part of writing, and though it can be constructive, it’s also exhausting at times. I can spend a long while writing a piece I think is particularly good, only to have it torn apart online by savage commenters who seem bent on crushing my very soul. Such instances are why these last two weeks have been surprisingly refreshing.

Forum threads, comments, tweets and emails have been full of tremendous support and kind words for myself and the other Forbes gaming contributors, due to our coverage of the Mass Effect 3 controversy. So much so, the internet has even spawned images like this one, which is both humorous and heartwarming, as it’s always nice to be recognized for your work, and it really does mean a lot to us as writers.

But parts of the conversation have turned to a subject that’s bothered me for a while now. While I appreciate the comments that our pieces are honest, objective and well-written, I see many saying that such things are rare to see because all the other mainstream gaming journalism sites are “beholden” to game companies for ad dollars, free games and such. Therefore, unbiased gaming journalism is all but nonexistent.

I wrote about a conspiracy theory yesterday which has the *real* ending of Mass Effect 3 explained by a series of blog posts and YouTube videos that turn it into something else more intelligent. It’s kind of a stretch in parts, but it’s completely rational compared to another gaming conspiracy, that all journalists are in the pockets of EA, Activision and the other major corporations, and are therefore capable of producing unbiased pieces.

Such thinking was brought up when many of the big sites, Kotaku, G4, IGN and so on began publishing pieces or writing tweets that were mocking fans for wanting a new ending to Mass Effect 3. Meanwhile, my initial post suggested that if Bioware didn’t want to lose the good will of its fans, a valuable, fast-shrinking commodity, changing or updating the ending would be good for both fans and the brand. In a follow-up piece, I made a simple statement that “fan service is good business.” My pieces were well received by the community while theirs were not.

But does that make Kotaku, G4, IGN and other agents of EA? Were they really influenced to defend the ending of the game and lambast those who questioned it? No. Such behavior might make them look like jerks in many people’s eyes, as it’s never wise to outright mock your readership, but it hardly makes them servants of the corporations. I honestly believe many of them just didn’t care. They either didn’t see what all the fuss was about, or really do believe that “art” is sacred, and should never be changed for an audience.

I’m a freelancer for Forbes, and have only recently gotten my start in the gaming industry a few years ago . As such, I am not an entrenched figure on the scene, and only rarely do I receive products or press invitations from companies, as I don’t yet know all the right PR people. I never get advance review copies of games.

Nope, I had to pay for this.

Perhaps it makes me more passionate about a title when I’ve spent $60 of my own money on it, or if it’s a series that has cost me over $200 to date. But the fact remains that if EA had shipped me a free early review copy, none of what I said would have changed. I think it’s a bit disingenuous if you truly believe that the industry as a whole is corrupted to a degree where ads and review copies are really changing people’s opinions and review scores.

Many are upset with game critics for giving Mass Effect 3 high review marks, and it’s another avenue of criticism that I think is unfair. If a game is absolutely astonishing for twenty nine hours and fifty five minutes of its 30 hour runtime, does it deserve to be given a low score because the last few minutes are such a letdown? You could argue that, if you believe the ending negates your enjoyment of the entire game, but I think the stronger case is that the game on the whole is a pretty stunning accomplishment, even if the ball is dropped through the floor in the closing moments.

I’m not saying that journalistic bias or corporate influence never happens in the industry. We all know the famous story of the Gamespot editor who was fired because of a low score given to a crappy game whose publishers were in league with the site owners. And there have been a handful of threats of sites losing privileges like free games or press invites based on certain stories. But you have to admit that these instances are quite rare, especially considering the massive amount of gaming articles that go to print across thousands of sites every day. And with writers who love to talk as much as they do, if there really was a big conspiracy or scandal, don’t you think someone would have blown the whistle by now?

But if there’s a perceived problem, there is usually an actual problem behind it. It just might not be the one you think. The main issue I think gaming journalism is suffering from right now is fatigue. Some of the veterans in the industry have been doing this so long, they’ve forgotten what it’s like to be a fan, which often results in a very strong and obvious disconnect with their readers. At many sites, it seems that the writers are at times purposefully picking fights with their audience now, either through baiting or just poor attempts at trying to have “attitude.” It’s strange and sad to see, and is a problem that needs to be addressed at many of these places.

Post Your Comment

Post Your Reply

Forbes writers have the ability to call out member comments they find particularly interesting. Called-out comments are highlighted across the Forbes network. You'll be notified if your comment is called out.

you might be missing a key point Paul: what gamers rate the game isnt important, that they have a radically different rating to reviewers is. If a reviewer is truly representative of a game then why werent 90% of reviewers, at the very least, making statements pre-controversy over how the ending might be dissapointing? The actual scores dont matter, the disconnect does.

I think a key difference is many reviewers obviously feel a professional responsibility to be objective and base a review more on gameplay, mechanics, entertainment and amount of content you get for the investment. Those reviewers are probably able to divorce the let down of the last minutes in light of the 29 hrs that got them there as you said Paul.

Gamers without that professional responsibility are incensed because ME3 was such a great game and series that most became emotionally tethered. There is no greater enemy than someone who was a best friend or family member.

I think a key difference is gamers based their rating off the whole series and the emotional let down of the ending, reviewers based their ratings off this one game and some may have only seen the ending after.

The uproar is a documented testimony to the greatness of the series and the magic that BioWare artistically crafted. Perhaps some might mock the emotion that gamers developed for ME but if there were no responsibility to review a game objectively i have no doubt many reviewers would have joined the verbal uproar of the gaming community.

Also, let’s be honest, as much as I count myself part of the gaming community, we are not a patient, forgiving and softspoken group. But BioWare has created some amazing games, and I think it would be a crime and a shame for gamers to estrange their brand based on this ending.

I feel that many fans “bombed” metacritic because they don’t know how else to send a strong message of their dislike for the ending, other than not buying a future game from Bioware. But the effects of a mass of fans (yeah, i just did that) not buying a future game won’t be felt until sometime in, well, the future. So they “bomb” their dislike to get the message across. I’m not condoning it, just explaining how I see it. Being “lukewarm” on a review (i.e. 7.0, 3 off for terrible ending) typically doesn’t send a strong message to the company as they will rationalize to themselves how great their game is and how the fans didn’t “get it.”

I agree that it doesn’t deserve a 3.7 as an individual game. The user ratings are not simply a reflection of the game itself but also how it serves the purpose of concluding the series. In that sense, it has failed horribly and a 3.7 could be argued as justified.

I had plans of starting again at ME1 multiple times. After experiencing the ending, the idea of playing any mass effect game with the current ending is soured.

In all fairness, do you think people would be driving those scores down if they believed outlets like IGN and G4, who wield an ENORMOUS amount of power over the opinion and spending habits of their considerable audiences, could be trusted to address their concerns in a way that is open and honest? Because they haven’t done that. Not only have they not given critics of the game a fair shake, they’ve more or less shoved them under the rug where they haven’t outright dismissed or attacked them as being entitled or unintelligence.

Isn’t it possible that they’re going through the only unfiltered channels that are available to them? I can e-mail as many sites as I want asking them to address or at least state my concerns and inject them into the discussion, but what are the chances that they’ll listen? Moreover, what’s the chance that they’ll characterize my thoughts as I intended them and give them the weight that they deserve?

To be clear, I didn’t participate in those activities. While I don’t think the people that did are juvenile for doing so, I just didn’t feel right about it and wasn’t sure how that could be rectified if BioWare were to make good and fix what they broke. That said, I don’t think the people who did it were juvenile. Short-sighted, perhaps, but they were flexing the only muscle they had.

Yes, Mass Effect deserves a 3.7 if that is what the consumer feels it deserves.

We rate the game as a whole, not the first 90%. The ending really is that bad and the ratings reflect it. It is based on the principle of broken promises by EA regarding the ending and what is obviously a rushed ending, complete with video sequences that don’t even make sense, such as the Normandy in warp transit for no explicable reason.

To simply say fans are “at fault and acting juvenile for bombing the Metacritic scores” completely insults and marginalizes the consumer. Such a statement commits the fallacy of labeling the upset consumers “cry babies” and completely misses the issue while alienating your own readers.

Either way, consumers are voting with their wallets. I just canceled my SWTOR account over the ME3 ending, based on principle alone.

This flashed to the middle of my screen when I finished my first post. And had a sudden thought.

I do agree with your sentiments on that issue; why ‘bomb’ a score based on the ending?

My thought was, maybe this is the only way people think/thought that they could bring attention to the situation? Let’s face it, I’ve been READING a lot and if weren’t for you guys at Forbes, I’d venture to say, ‘there would be no other side.’